Jump to content

An Appreciation Of The SL By A Confirmed M User


johnbuckley

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been using an M for nearly 15 years, only rarely wishing to have a camera that offers things the M does not: autofocus, the ability to easily use native long lenses and zooms, etc.  But the SL really intrigued me when it was introduced, and I've been using one since April.

 

There have been some really excellent reviews of the SL, many linked here, by both professional reviewers and others moved to offer their perspective.  I've just put up on my site a different sort of "review" -- it's an appreciation, really, of the SL in the context of my deep and abiding love of the M system.  Or alternatively, it's an appreciation of the M in the context of my new and abiding love of the SL.

 

I hope that both confirmed SL users and M system photographers will find it useful.

 

https://tulipfrenzy.com/2016/07/11/an-appreciation-of-the-leica-sl-by-a-confirmed-leica-m-photographer/

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great review and I agree with your take on the EVF in bright daylight. After using an M240 for about 2 years I just purchased the SL to use with my M lenses. I didn't purchase either of the SL lenses. I used the SL with the M 35mm summilux for the first time this weekend in Chicago where it was very bright and sunny. At times it was very difficult to see in the EVF (glasses don't help but a necessity). Manual focusing was very difficult at those times and I think would have been easier with the M. In the end the photos were great (and in focus) and for me justified the purchase of the SL. So I am going to keep the M240 along side the SL and most likely purchase the SL 50mm when it's released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting review. Not bad, but can't agree with all of it. 

 

While I agree that SL and M are complementary, not competitive, offerings, I have no problem carrying the SL in situations where you seem to find it less than a pleasure. I also have no problem shooting in the situations where you 'snap away like the Nikon and Canon users with their autofocus' ... Focusing an M has never been a hindrance to my photography. Nor has having only prime lenses, or having to set exposure manually. And I find that there is way more complaining about the viewfinder than I would do ... I frankly cannot understand most of these "dark dark dark" complaints because, at least the way I use my camera, I don't see it. 

 

Perhaps the fact that I've been using EVF cameras off and on for over 12 years (first was a Sony DCS-F707 in 2002) means that I've become very accustomed to their foibles and how to get the most out of them. I remember shooting at an airshow with my Panasonic FZ10 that had a viewfinder refresh rate so slow I couldn't see the airplanes at all half the time, yet I made a whole set of good photos of them that were licensed out pretty quickly. The SL viewfinder works fine for me, overall; I wish I could say the same for the AutoISO. 

 

Different perceptions, different people. My kit nowadays is the SL with a bevy of R lenses, the WATE, and the SL24-90, complemented by an M-D with WATE, 'Lux 35, and 'Rit 75. They all work well for my photography. Whatever works is good.  :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramarren - I wouldn't complain about the darkness of the viewfinder in bright light if it hadn't just been so obvious, and deficient.  I had been pretty smitten with SL in the early part of last week, taking pictures around Jackson Hole.  But then late last week when in Yellowstone, it really began to get to me. It's a real issue.  I had agreed with Doug (wildlightphoto) about the issue when you press down on the shutter, but in the main thought the EVF was fantastic. But in bright light, there really should be some option to brighten the image so you can see what you're shooting. And as should be clear, that issue notwithstanding, I think this is a great camera system.

 

Jeff - discretion, even about spelling, is the better part of valor :-). And yes, the Keukenhof is on my bucket list -- and I can't wait to see the movie "Tulip Fever," which is set in 17th Century Holland, due out in February.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in another thread, all EVFs (so far) have a problem with high contrast lighting situations (indoor or outdoor).  Not just losing shadow detail, but conversely losing highlight detail, or both.  Michael Reichmann (RIP) wrote and talked often about this, and Sean Reid echoed the sentiment, including in his SL review on LuLa.

 

I think Doug's wanting constant exposure preview will not eliminate the issue, which is inherently low dynamic range compared to optical finders.  My guess is that this might help shadows, but wash out highlights....or vice versa.

 

Many can work around (or not even notice, like ramarren) these issues, but many others (like me) find it problematic.  Seeing the subject clearly is my first priority when assessing a camera.  That said, the SL EVF is better than most if not all others that I've seen (but still tv-screen-like), and of course the camera offers a lot of other benefits.  The M240, on the other hand, excels for me on this same VF criterion, but offers a different set of benefits.   Tradeoffs.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in another thread, all EVFs (so far) have a problem with high contrast lighting situations (indoor or outdoor).  Not just losing shadow detail, but conversely losing highlight detail, or both.  Michael Reichmann (RIP) wrote and talked often about this, and Sean Reid echoed the sentiment, including in his SL review on LuLa.

 

I think Doug's wanting constant exposure preview will not eliminate the issue, which is inherently low dynamic range compared to optical finders.  My guess is that this might help shadows, but wash out highlights....or vice versa.

 

Many can work around (or not even notice, like ramarren) these issues, but many others (like me) find it problematic.  Seeing the subject clearly is my first priority when assessing a camera.  That said, the SL EVF is better than most if not all others that I've seen (but still tv-screen-like), and of course the camera offers a lot of other benefits.  The M240, on the other hand, excels for me on this same VF criterion, but offers a different set of benefits.   Tradeoffs.

 

Jeff

 

 

Technically, an optical finder does not have dynamic range at all. It is simply passing the light through it. It is your eye that has to have dynamic range to accommodate the brightness or darkness of the light. Optical finders go dark in dark circumstances ... Is that better or worse than EVF/LCD panels that are more likely to be difficult to see with when it is bright? 

 

For my photography, I have found it much more difficult to deal with the frequent darkness of an optical viewfinder than with the infrequent contrast issue in the EVF. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, an optical finder does not have dynamic range at all. It is simply passing the light through it. It is your eye that has to have dynamic range to accommodate the brightness or darkness of the light. Optical finders go dark in dark circumstances ... Is that better or worse than EVF/LCD panels that are more likely to be difficult to see with when it is bright?

 

For my photography, I have found it much more difficult to deal with the frequent darkness of an optical viewfinder than with the infrequent contrast issue in the EVF.

OVFs and EVFs have quite different benefits. OVFs like the M's are more accurate to the scene whereas EVFs can provide more accurate predictions of the photo you're trying to make.

 

My ideal camera would have both. Fortunately, it does.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting review. Not bad, but can't agree with all of it.

 

While I agree that SL and M are complementary, not competitive, offerings, I have no problem carrying the SL in situations where you seem to find it less than a pleasure. I also have no problem shooting in the situations where you 'snap away like the Nikon and Canon users with their autofocus' ... Focusing an M has never been a hindrance to my photography. Nor has having only prime lenses, or having to set exposure manually. And I find that there is way more complaining about the viewfinder than I would do ... I frankly cannot understand most of these "dark dark dark" complaints because, at least the way I use my camera, I don't see it.

 

Perhaps the fact that I've been using EVF cameras off and on for over 12 years (first was a Sony DCS-F707 in 2002) means that I've become very accustomed to their foibles and how to get the most out of them. I remember shooting at an airshow with my Panasonic FZ10 that had a viewfinder refresh rate so slow I couldn't see the airplanes at all half the time, yet I made a whole set of good photos of them that were licensed out pretty quickly. The SL viewfinder works fine for me, overall; I wish I could say the same for the AutoISO.

 

Different perceptions, different people. My kit nowadays is the SL with a bevy of R lenses, the WATE, and the SL24-90, complemented by an M-D with WATE, 'Lux 35, and 'Rit 75. They all work well for my photography. Whatever works is good. :D

If is not EVFs, it is SL's EVF.

As I have mentioned before I have compared the EVF directly with GH4, Fuji Xpro2, M240, Leica T, Leica D-Lux (Typ 109). (All personal cameras, not a quick look through a friends camera)

And it is very dark in bright light, and there is not currently an option to adjust it. The sad part is that off all the other EVFs I have used, I haven't actually changed from the default setting, but they all have the ability to adjust them, except the SL!

 

I think it is so bad I was back at the dealer the day after I got the camera.

When I was doing a surfing event tag teaming the SL with the XPro2 it was a nightmare as the viewfinder of the SL was so dark I could not see that well to manually focus. Then I would swap to the Xpro2 and be able to see but it was less critical as I had autofocus with that.

 

I take 95% of my shots outdoors (in bright Australian conditions) and the EVF of the SL bugs me on a daily basis.

The only reason why I picked the camera up from the dealer (I left it there for 5 days so they could compare my camera to other SLs) was that they assured me Leica knew about the issue, and would add the ability to adjust the EVF in coming firmware.

That was December, so 7 months ago.

Edited by haydenc
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in another thread, all EVFs (so far) have a problem with high contrast lighting situations (indoor or outdoor).  Not just losing shadow detail, but conversely losing highlight detail, or both.  Michael Reichmann (RIP) wrote and talked often about this, and Sean Reid echoed the sentiment, including in his SL review on LuLa.

 

I think Doug's wanting constant exposure preview will not eliminate the issue, which is inherently low dynamic range compared to optical finders.  My guess is that this might help shadows, but wash out highlights....or vice versa.

 

Many can work around (or not even notice, like ramarren) these issues, but many others (like me) find it problematic.  Seeing the subject clearly is my first priority when assessing a camera.  That said, the SL EVF is better than most if not all others that I've seen (but still tv-screen-like), and of course the camera offers a lot of other benefits.  The M240, on the other hand, excels for me on this same VF criterion, but offers a different set of benefits.   Tradeoffs.

 

Jeff

 

As Ramarren pointed out an OVF has the dynamic range of our vision. That is nice for seeing the scene, but it comes with a common problem for photography. Our vision has greater dynamic range than film in the old days and even the best sensors today. That means that what we see will not be what we capture as an image (the image will have less dynamic range). Ideally an EVF would represent the image we are capturing on the sensor, but even good ones typically have less dynamic range than the sensor. The ideal EVF, however, would tell us what the image we are capturing would look like. Then if we had exposure preview we would be seeing in the EVF what we are capturing. By those standards the SL EVF is certainly not ideal, but it has the potential to be a step forward if they could make the brightness adjustable and would allow the exposure preview to be sticky.

 

We should all keep in mind that high dynamic range situations are always going to be tricky. With an OVF you will always have to guess how much of the dynamic range you are seeing you will actually be able to capture, and with an EVF you will be seeing less dynamic range than you can capture (perhaps this could be fixed in the future) and less dynamic range than you can see (this is very unlikely to be fixed in the future). Neither solution is ideal. Personally I tend to shoot in less extreme light (morning and evening light) in addition to reducing these dynamic range issues I like the quality of the light better at these times of day better as well.  In these types of light I generally prefer an EVF even though it isn't without some of the issues described above, but that is just my preference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll grant you that of the EVFs available today, the Olympus E-M1 has the best adaptive programming enabling it to adapt brightness the most fluidly to surrounding ambient light AND scene brightness. The Sony A7 EVF was terrible in sunlit conditions ... makes the SL viewfinder look superb by comparison. 

 

But I'll likely never buy another optical SLR ... The ability to focus critically with a very short focal length, the ability to focus and frame in dim circumstances is much more important to me than shooting in harsh sunlit conditions where I find few photographs I'm interested in exist anyway. Even when I'm shooting sports in bright sunny days, I avoid extremes of contrast in my photographs as a matter of course. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, an optical finder does not have dynamic range at all. It is simply passing the light through it. It is your eye that has to have dynamic range to accommodate the brightness or darkness of the light. Optical finders go dark in dark circumstances ... Is that better or worse than EVF/LCD panels that are more likely to be difficult to see with when it is bright? 

 

For my photography, I have found it much more difficult to deal with the frequent darkness of an optical viewfinder than with the infrequent contrast issue in the EVF. 

 

I was obviously (to me) talking about dynamic range that we can actually see.  I like to see the scene as it is (and interpret it on my own, as my tools allow), not based on some electronic enhancement (or deficit).  So, yes, optical finders work better for me in that regard (so far).  EVFs are far worse...even faulty, for my use and preference.  I don't experience 'frequent darkness' (your words)  with my Ms.  Your mileage varies.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this discussion has been dragged off track, a bit. Enough SL users report, in this thread and others, issues with the way shadow/darker areas in bright conditions become difficult to see through the SL's EVF. The camera still records the image and there is plenty of shadow detail one can extract to provide a good finished picture.

 

Even those of us who are noticing this issue, and reporting on it, recognize the SL is a fantastic camera, and in many cases - not all - the EVF is exemplary. Yes, more than just Leica's EVF has issues. But rather than a workaround, it would be good if Leica could find some way of addressing this known issue, ideally through an ability to manually brighten the EVF image at critical moments when it is fooled by bright light.

 

Let's keep this on track: no one is trying to damn the SL. It's great. Wouldn't it be better if this flaw many of us are reporting could be addressed in some manner?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll grant you that of the EVFs available today, the Olympus E-M1 has the best adaptive programming enabling it to adapt brightness the most fluidly to surrounding ambient light AND scene brightness. The Sony A7 EVF was terrible in sunlit conditions ... makes the SL viewfinder look superb by comparison. 

 

But I'll likely never buy another optical SLR ... The ability to focus critically with a very short focal length, the ability to focus and frame in dim circumstances is much more important to me than shooting in harsh sunlit conditions where I find few photographs I'm interested in exist anyway. Even when I'm shooting sports in bright sunny days, I avoid extremes of contrast in my photographs as a matter of course. 

 

 

My view exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...